Weinsteins Decide ‘Philomena’-NY Post Dust-Up Makes For Great Ad Copy

Gotta hand it to Harvey: When he sees an angle to boost the profile of his movies, he goes for it. The Weinstein Company is placing an ad in tomorrow’s New York Times referencing the skirmish between NY Post reviewer Kyle Smith and the real-life Philomena Lee, the subject of the distributor’s Oscar-season pic Philomena directed by Stephen Frears and starring Judi Dench as Lee. That’s the rift Deadline’s Mike Fleming Jr. told you about first last week by publishing Lee’s response to Smith’s review that called the pic among other things an attack on Catholics. The NYT ad excerpts Lee’s letter to Smith that Fleming ran full and comes complete with a a call to action — “Decide For Yourself” — even though the movie’s been in the marketplace since the week before Thanksgiving. Click over for the ad:

18 Comments

And yes, it happens to involve one specific organization that happens to be Catholic.

It was a different time.

Not once did I think this is an attack on Catholics. Didn’t even cross my mind.

Jake • on Dec 4, 2013 5:31 pm

It truly is one of the happiest surprises and one of the best movies of the year

curious_sixty_two • on Dec 4, 2013 5:31 pm

I too saw the movie this weekend. I was told beforehand in published reports that the movie was both anti-Catholic and anti-Republican.

I am certainly no Catholic but I am a registered Republican. If you know anything about the tenants of Catholicism as dictated by the Vatican and are even remotely aware of what elements have been in control of the Republican party for over 30 years, you know that their portrayals in the film are spot on accurate. It is merely a matter of the viewer’s perception whether or not you believe that is flattering.

What was special about the film, in my view, was that as much as Philomena Lee was grief stricken that she never had a relationship with her son, she praised the Church for placing him with a family who helped him live a full life “that I could never give him.”

That, my friends, is love.

That you Stephen Frears … and Dame Judi Dench … for this early Christmas present.

Mark Kelley • on Dec 4, 2013 5:31 pm

That is exactly the rhetoric of how those crazy political candidate ads start. Substitute Cory Booker’s name and imagine powering through the commercial where the announcer (the pre-election “in a world…” stuff of tone and style) makes Armageddon-sarcastic implications in hushed sky-is-falling terms and there’s copy on the screen but the commercial races you through without giving you a chance to actually consider what it’s more suggesting than actually saying. Plus it’s saying go with “Rotten Tomatoes” potentially reducing your own opinion, instincts, and judgment to a vegetable that can be squeezed for freshness on the basis of what he claims the three papers have written. It’s possible that people will react negatively to yet another episode of H.W. Barnum/David Merrick hi-jinks. And it’s safe to say isn’t it? That it looks like he’s gonna dump “August Osage County” in favor of “Lee Daniels’ ‘The Butler’ “? This ad is gonna backfire I think. He’s superciliously saying to millions of Catholics – hey flock of dumb sheep –

WAKE UP! Open your eyes.

It plays into a very specific prejudice regarding practicing Catholics – that the Pope does their medieval thinking for them. Implicitly isn’t that what he’s also saying about Kyle Smith? New York Post? Rupert Murdoch? FOX News? That’s all there in a probably not arbitrarily selected RED and YELLOW it seems to me if you read between the lines. It also, like those two-by-four to the back of the head oft-Koch Bros.-financed ads, misrepresents right up front from what I’m seeing here. “The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, [and] USA Today all praise ‘Philomena’ with a 92% ‘certified fresh’ from ‘Rotten Tomatoes’.” Why would they have done that? I’m sure they had praise of their own.

It’s the deliberately compressed ad copy itself that pulls off that wrap-around impression of facts. Read correctly the three news outlets trumpeted the movie as 92% “certified fresh” on Rotten Tomatoes. If they did I doubt that they did so in actual reviews but I could be wrong.

Mark K. • on Dec 4, 2013 5:31 pm

I neglected to say that it sounds like a wonderful film about recognizable fallible human beings. I look forward to seeing it.

rob • on Dec 4, 2013 5:31 pm

Kyle Smith isn’t the greatest reviewer , so I doubt another dumb review will impact the film.Usually if he hates it- the film is good. Its a wonderful movie. Great acting. If he knew ahead of time he was going to be offended he could have let Lou from that Paper review it.

margo • on Dec 4, 2013 5:31 pm

Philomena is a great, meaningful, multi-layered story. I am a Catholic and love church. Nothing any single clergy member does – or has done in the past – can negate the essence of my religious beliefs. This film is not a hateful attack on Catholicism. Philamena portrays a deeply spiritual, caring, selfless, loving person going on a journey to come to terms with her tormented, tortured past. Instead of turning bitter, she remained faithful, which gave her strength and joy, even in the midst of suffering. It is a beautifully done story – Academy Award Winning, in my opinion. Philomena signifies all that Christ teaches us in her character: to love, to forgive, to see the good in the midst of evil… Everyone can get something from seeing this movie. It’s a thinker, one that inspires discussion. Important.

Dangerous • on Dec 4, 2013 5:31 pm

Wonderful surprise of a film – simple story with many layers. I am Catholic and absolutely no offense taken here.

Dale dawkins • on Dec 4, 2013 5:31 pm

Saw it. It’s a great film. The acting and the writing is on a very level of excellence. Really enjoyed it. Steve Coogan is great.

duke • on Dec 4, 2013 5:31 pm

bravo to kyle smith for telling it like it is.

Michael Murphy • on Dec 4, 2013 5:31 pm

If you believe anything the New York Post has to say, you get what you deserve. Of course, the Post knows all there is to know about “hateful attacks.” I’ll give them that much.

Frankly, I found Kyle Smith’s review an organized attack on trafficked Irish-born adopted people and mothers of loss, and our true, lived narratives, and told him so when his review was first published and comments were permitted. But of course, the Post/Smith immediately pulled commenting capability and Smith took the coward’s way out, remaining unresponsive via Twitter, etc. As a friend and journalist for the Irish Examiner, Conall O’Fatharta rightly said, “So [Smith] hated Philomena, but to display such staggering ignorance of adoption in Ireland based on, well, no research is another thing.” Rather than attempt to reach out and educate himself, he chose to remain silent, and that speaks volumes. I applaud Harvey Weinstein and would do all in my power to promote this wonderful, truthful film as well.

Tracey Elisabeth • on Dec 4, 2013 5:31 pm

I have not seen Philomena yet, but I full well intend to. I have, however, been reading as much as I can about this movie and also the controversy surrounding it. I don’t think this is an assault on the Catholic church…but rather a testimony that not all things done by people claiming to act for God are a result of acting in good faith.

As an adoptee myself placed through the Catholic Church, having been raised in the Catholic Church and my adoptive mother actually working in a rectory, I have absolutely no difficulty believing the actions of the representatives of the church in this movie. I have known many very good priests and nuns in my life…good, Godly people…but I have also seen others as well.

I myself was told when searching for my own biological information via baptism records that I was never baptized in the church I was despite not one…but 2 certified baptismal certificates from that parish saying that I was. You see, in the register of baptism contained at the church would be my birth name and the name of my biological mother….records they wanted to hide from me which were never sealed by the courts…a “back door in” so to speak. They had no legal reason to withhold the information…they chose to lie (nice people of the cloth) rather than divulge information to me figuring I would not be able to find my biological mother.

In the end, I found her and obtained my “story” and my medical information. She unfortunately has remained scarred by the shame that the Catholic Church and society in general placed upon her and never told anyone about me. I honor her decision to remain a secret part of her past, sadly, but pray for the day she decides to tell my half sister I exist so that she will know she is not alone.

My biological mother was kind enough to let me know my father’s name and I have reunited with his family as he passed away several years ago. I have been accepted by my biological Aunt and my other 3 half siblings. I just needed to know what happened, how I came to be in the situation I am, my medical history for myself and my children, and what became of everyone. Having a relationship with any of them is a blessing indeed.

This movie is not a smear on the Catholic Church…my personal experience leads me to believe that, while Hollywood certainly takes it’s liberties with artistic license, the reaction of some representatives of the Church is not beyond true belief and rather is a testimony to how horribly they treated many young un-wed mothers and will go to great lengths to protect their “business”. It would be far better that they just come clean and apologize for their behavior of the past, enact real change to the adoption system so that it is actually in the best interest of the children they are placing, and help correct the huge injustice upon the adoptees and their biological mothers. I was blessed with wonderful adoptive parents, but not everyone is.

Lee Campbell • on Dec 4, 2013 5:31 pm

It’s not just Ireland, which is at last investigating whether an apology is appropriate. And, it’s not just Australia, which has already issued an apology. Exploiting birthmothers is also an American tragedy.

So, as an American birthmother I should be ecstatic that, finally, the story of one of us has made it to the big screen. Instead, the movie is bittersweet for me. “Philomena” does accurately depict forced surrender. (And, make no mistake: anytime a mother was or is deliberately denied information about resources that could help her raise her child — and instead was or is only given one option, to surrender — it was and remains a forced adoption.) For the exposure of the trafficking in adoption, I am grateful to “Philomena.” Yet, the range of grief work, which quite naturally includes anger, was bypassed. White-washed, simplified.

You will never see the full range of damage birthmothers have experienced until the big screen shows a “Norma Rae” birthmother, one who rallied thousands of other birthmothers. For that, I volunteer my story.

Filled with the terror of breaking a taboo that took my first borne child, I risked the idyllic new life I was promised as compensation for my loss. In the mid-‘70s, I founded the first MUTUAL HELP organization of its kind in the world to help THOUSANDS of other birthmothers make peace with themselves. With this new band of sisters, I began to rail against the profitable adoption industry.

In my recent book, “Stow Away” (createspace.com/4147943 or amazon.com), and its upcoming sequel “Cast Off,” I mine the complexities of “birthparenthood” and demonstrate the need for fundamental change in how WE birthmothers — and our children — continue to be negatively regarded and adversely treated.

As a personal fan of forgiveness, I know you usually need to trudge through the fires of anger to get there. By showing one “Philomena,” the film tragically overlooks the widespread and deeply troubling phenomena — anger included — of other birthparents.

Kathy Johnson • on Dec 4, 2013 5:31 pm

The film is about the treatment of women and children…. particularly unwed mothers and their children… it is placed in a time and location…. but if anyone thinks it is an isolated event…. or even over and done with…. there’s more to be learned…. In the United States today this kind of oppression continues in a different form and inflicted by individuals, companies and government….. not any church in particular….. the immense discrimination ….. the suspension of civil rights for the adopted (adults and children) continues in a more subtle way to oppress mothers and their children…. what is “good” for the children and mothers is better known but not often practiced…. that is the real message of this film …. a powerful message … missed if you focus on the Catholic Church alone…. Until adoptees and the natural families and adopters have their full rights ( as in access to records and unsealed birth certificates)…. we are living in an altered form of Philomena’s oppression…..

That’s the message…. help?!….

Debra Ismail • on Dec 4, 2013 5:31 pm

Philomena is a wonderful movie and it is about time that this unrecognized reality is brought to light.

Kyle Smith clearly lacks the empathy and any real knowledge of first mothers and their children separated by force at the hands of the church and other institutions in past years.

Countless woman have had their souls torn to pieces by the removal of their babies, only to be told it was what was best for their children. Their crimes? conceiving their children out of wedlock.

If and when the church can ever acknowledge the wrong doings of the past and publicly apologize for these wrong doings there can be no healing. Unfortunately, the Church has not done what is best for our children in the past, from forced adoptions to protecting pedophile priests.

I am a birthmother who SURRENDERED in 1954. The “Philomena” story was only one of millions of stories of women whose babies were taken at the hands of various church agencies – not just the Catholic church. Internet research shows that 75% of all adoptions in America in this very day and age are being performed by Christian agencies which are innumberable; as well as LDS Family Services, Jewish Family Services, plus all the private attorneys and many others who profit from adoption. It’s all about the money, has been going on for the past 75 years and continues to this very day. Because records are altered and falisified, they are able to continue to charge huge fees with almost a guarantee that under the closed sealed secret adoption system, they will never be found out. But now, birthmothers from all over the world are speaking up and saying – our babies were taken from us -we were given no other choice but adoption. We never asked for or wanted confidentiality from our own child! Giving up a child is an unnatural act. The long term pain of having to do so is unimaginable. We need more and more Philomena movies to expose these billion dollar “non-profit” agencies that sell babies to the highest bidder. Illegal practices will continue to flourish under the closed sealed secret adoption practices and this is the story that needs to be exposed!. Until adoption records become open and see the light of day and practices are above board, instead of secret and hidden, and until the falsification of documents ends, babies will continue to be sold to the highest bidder! I came out of the closet in 1976 and immediately became an activist to end this archaic system. In 1993 I was sent to prison for my work of reuniting families. I turned down a generous plea deal and stood my ground to make a point that it should be illegal to be able to alter and falsify an individual’s original birth certificate! What other form can be “doctored” and called a legal document? Our government should have been on trial – not me! I encourage Hollywood to pick up the baton and expose this industry for what it really is – a baby selling, human trafficking billion dollar business.

Clive Seaton • on Dec 4, 2013 5:31 pm

I have had to endure my life with a story so similar to Philomena. Been a male and having no rights to adoption or even to search for my daughter made me even more determined and when the laws changed in South Africa in 2007 my search began. She was born in a Catholic home in Pretoria on the 06/06/80 and immediately adopted even though my mother had, two years before, adopted my now brother, was blocked from adopting her, not by the Catholic Church, but by the birth mother. When the laws changes and the search began, I chose two routes to search. One was the Department of Social Welfare and the other The Women’s Catholic League. Next I had to have consent from the birth mother, who after two years traced to living in London. Social Welfare was was a never ending roundabout but not so with the WCL. They were helpful with all the tracing and even suggested on tracing agents. Very long story short, I made contact with my daughter on the 12th August 2013, finding her in Germany. She is married to a wonderful guy and have a beautiful 1 year old. I met her in person last month and it has changed my life. If it was not for the Catholic Womens league, this would never have happened. I was for many years (even though Catholic) against what had happened and blamed the Catholic Church. Things change, people change and we sometimes have to look past those issues, even if it takes 33years.